Appendix DDemographic Projections of the Research Workforce in theBiomedical, Clinical, and Behavioral Sciences, 2006-2016

Projecting the research workforce is particularly difficult at this time. Available survey data on the workforce predate the economic crisis and subsequent stimulus, and no previous experience is available to indicate how the size and composition of the workforce have been affected and will change as a result in the future. Projections are reported here that rely on the statistical record, and because of these circumstances they probably carry a larger than usual, although unquantifiable, margin of error.

We consider first what the record says about the research workforce in three large fields: the basic biomedical, clinical, and behavioral and social (or simply behavioral) sciences. The disciplines that these three major fields cover are specified in the preceding appendix. By the workforce we understand all those residing in the United States who are qualified to do research by reason of the appropriate degree, as long as they are not retired. Although some without the degree may make important contributions, their numbers are probably small in comparison and in any case are not documented.

We first describe the workforce itself, then the graduates and immigrants who regularly add themselves to it, then the process of leaving the workforce through retirement and death as well as other changes in status, such as from employment to unemployment. These descriptive sections give fairly clear indications of the directions in which the workforce could be headed—absent the perturbations related to the great recession. We then describe the assumptions made in the projections and present projections of the workforce up to 2016.

THE SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE

The scientific workforce has three major segments: Ph.D.s with U.S. doctorates, immigrant Ph.D.s with foreign doctorates, and M.D.s who do not also have Ph.D.s but have research interests. Because the NIH did not release data on M.D. researchers, we focus entirely on Ph.D.s, especially on the U.S.-trained, about whom there are the most data.1

U.S.-Trained Ph.D.s

The latest survey, in 2006, put the number of research scientists with U.S. Ph.D.s at 126,000 in the biomedical field, 24,000 in the clinical field, and 120,000 in the behavioral field (Table D-1). Five years earlier, behavioral and biomedical scientists were virtually equal at 113,000-114,000 each, but since then behavioral scientists have increased at a rate of only 1.1 percent annually, in contrast to an increase of 2.1 percent annually for biomedical scientists. Clinical scientists, by far the smallest group, grew much faster, at 4.7 percent annually.

The recent increases in U.S.-trained Ph.D.s are roughly in line with long-term trends, which suggest slowing growth in the behavioral field, slightly accelerating growth in the biomedical field, and greater acceleration in the clinical field (Figure D-1). Over the past two decades, however, growth rates have moderated in each field. Rates were higher from 1995 to 2001, at 2.5 percent annually for U.S.-trained behavioral scientists, 3.7 percent for biomedical scientists, and 5.5 percent for clinical scientists. From 2001 to 2006, the annual increments in the workforce were around 1,300 behavioral scientists, twice that number of biomedical scientists, and about 1,000 clinical scientists. Given estimates of retirements and deaths (to be considered below), this implies that, in 2001-2006, close to 25 percent of biomedical and behavioral Ph.D. graduates annually and about 15 percent of clinical graduates were not being immediately absorbed into the workforce. Exactly where they were or what they were doing instead is not evident.

1

For completeness, we note other small groups that are not covered: those without Ph.D.s who still do independent scientific work and those with Ph.D.s in other fields, such as informatics, materials science, and physics, who have been recruited into the ranks of health researchers.

Citation Manager

"
Appendix D: Demographic Projections of the Research Workforce in the Biomedical, Clinical, and Behavioral Sciences, 2006-2016 ."
Research Training in the Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Research Sciences . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
2011 .

Please select a format:

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 125
appendix d
demographic Projections of the research Workforce in the
Biomedical, Clinical, and Behavioral Sciences, 2006-2016
Projecting the research workforce is particularly difficult M.D. researchers, we focus entirely on Ph.D.s, especially on
at this time. Available survey data on the workforce predate the U.S.-trained, about whom there are the most data.1
the economic crisis and subsequent stimulus, and no previous
experience is available to indicate how the size and composi-
u.S.-trained Ph.d.s
tion of the workforce have been affected and will change as
a result in the future. Projections are reported here that rely The latest survey, in 2006, put the number of research
on the statistical record, and because of these circumstances scientists with U.S. Ph.D.s at 126,000 in the biomedical field,
they probably carry a larger than usual, although unquantifi- 24,000 in the clinical field, and 120,000 in the behavioral
able, margin of error. field (Table D-1). Five years earlier, behavioral and bio-
We consider first what the record says about the research medical scientists were virtually equal at 113,000-114,000
workforce in three large fields: the basic biomedical, clini - each, but since then behavioral scientists have increased at a
cal, and behavioral and social (or simply behavioral) sci - rate of only 1.1 percent annually, in contrast to an increase
ences. The disciplines that these three major fields cover are of 2.1 percent annually for biomedical scientists. Clinical
specified in the preceding appendix. By the workforce we scientists, by far the smallest group, grew much faster, at
understand all those residing in the United States who are 4.7 percent annually.
qualified to do research by reason of the appropriate degree, The recent increases in U.S.-trained Ph.D.s are roughly
as long as they are not retired. Although some without the in line with long-term trends, which suggest slowing growth
degree may make important contributions, their numbers in the behavioral field, slightly accelerating growth in the
are probably small in comparison and in any case are not biomedical field, and greater acceleration in the clinical
documented. field (Figure D-1). Over the past two decades, however,
We first describe the workforce itself, then the graduates growth rates have moderated in each field. Rates were higher
and immigrants who regularly add themselves to it, then the from 1995 to 2001, at 2.5 percent annually for U.S.-trained
process of leaving the workforce through retirement and behavioral scientists, 3.7 percent for biomedical scientists,
death as well as other changes in status, such as from employ- and 5.5 percent for clinical scientists. From 2001 to 2006,
ment to unemployment. These descriptive sections give fairly the annual increments in the workforce were around 1,300
clear indications of the directions in which the workforce behavioral scientists, twice that number of biomedical scien-
could be headed—absent the perturbations related to the tists, and about 1,000 clinical scientists. Given estimates of
great recession. We then describe the assumptions made in retirements and deaths (to be considered below), this implies
the projections and present projections of the workforce up that, in 2001-2006, close to 25 percent of biomedical and
to 2016. behavioral Ph.D. graduates annually and about 15 percent of
clinical graduates were not being immediately absorbed into
the workforce. Exactly where they were or what they were
the SCieNtifiC WorkforCe
doing instead is not evident.
The scientific workforce has three major segments:
For completeness, we note other small groups that are not covered:
Ph.D.s with U.S. doctorates, immigrant Ph.D.s with foreign 1
those without Ph.D.s who still do independent scientific work and those with
doctorates, and M.D.s who do not also have Ph.D.s but have
Ph.D.s in other fields, such as informatics, materials science, and physics,
research interests. Because the NIH did not release data on who have been recruited into the ranks of health researchers.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
TABLE D-1 Workforce of U.S.-Trained Ph.D.s in Three Major Fields, by Sex and Employment Status, 2006
Biomedical Clinical Behavioral
Status Males Females Males Females Males Females
Total 80,268 45,828 9,451 14,706 57,593 62,758
Employed in Science 68,236 36,340 7,817 11,924 46,399 49,261
Postdoctorate 7,442 6,526 340 549 945 1,455
Other 0, ,8 , , , ,80
Employed Out of Science 10,772 6,604 1,600 2,172 10,668 10,715
Unemployed 464 582 N/A 124 224 449
Not in the Labor Force (but not retired) 796 2,302 34 486 302 2,333
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.
140
126 .1
120.4
120
10 0
Behavioral
Thousands
80
Biomedical
60
40
Clinical 24.2
20
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
FIGURE D-1 U.S.-trained Ph.D. workforce, in thousands, in three major fields, 1973-2006: quadratic trend and annual variations.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 1973-2006 and NRC analysis.
D-1.eps
These estimates of the workforce cover not only those fields, those on postdoctorates were 17,000 in 2006, or 7.8 per-
employed in jobs related to science (which includes those cent of all those in science employment. For scientists under
on postdoctorates) but also those in nonscience jobs, as well 35, postdoctorates made up 42 percent of science employment.
as the unemployed and those not looking for work—often The 2006 figures represented increases from 2001 and particu-
women taking a break from employment (Figure D-2). larly 2003, when absolute numbers on postdoctorates actually
The estimates exclude the retired. In 2006, those actually declined. Although 17,000 was the highest figure recorded in
employed in science were 80-83 percent of the total work- the biennial surveys, in percentage terms it represented no
force. This is a lower proportion than the historical average more than a return to the levels of the late 1990s.
up to 2001, which is around 90 percent in each field. What Another change in the U.S.-trained workforce, but one
has taken the place of jobs in science is non-science employ- that has been largely gradual, is the increasing proportion of
ment. In the Ph.D. surveys from 1973 to 2001, the propor- women (Figure D-3). Shortly after 2003, behavioral scien-
tion of the workforce employed in non-science jobs did tists reached a turning point, with the sex ratio falling to 100,
not exceed 10 percent in any field, except once, just barely, or equal numbers of men and women. Among clinical scien-
among behavioral scientists in 1995. In the two surveys since tists, this turning point was reached in 1994, and the sex ratio
2001, in contrast, this proportion has been between 13 and was down by 2006 to 64 men per 100 women and still falling.
18 percent in each field. Among biomedical scientists, the sex ratio was still elevated
Postdoctorates have been an important category of science at 175 in 2006, although extrapolation of current trends sug -
employment, particularly for younger scientists. Across all gests that equality could be reached around 2020.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
140
Biomedical
Behavioral
120
Not in the Labor Force
Unemployed
10 0
Out of Science
Employed, Postdoc
Thousands
80
Employed, Not Postdoc
60
40
Clinical
20
0
2001 2003 2006 2001 2003 2006 2001 2003 2006
Year
FIGURE D-2 U.S.-trained Ph.D.s by employment status and major field, 2001, 2003, and 2006 (thousands).
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients 2001, 2003, and 2006.
D-2.eps
Biomedical
251
250
220
Clinical
Behavioral
20 4 203
200 18 8
175
Males per 10 0 Females
150
13 6
124
116
10 8
10 0
10 0 92 92
91
81
75
70
64
50
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006
Year
FIGURE D-3 Sex ratio in the U.S.-trained workforce by major field and survey year, 1995-2006.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 1995-2006.
D-3.eps
As the sex ratio fell, female scientists apparently became for current purposes, as being in the workforce, because
more likely to find scientific employment. In the biomedical one assumes, for projection purposes, that they could read -
field, 85 percent of male scientists were employed in sci - ily return to employment.) The numbers are small—about
ence in 2006, but only 79 percent of female scientists were 5,000 in the three fields combined—but the proportion
so employed. In the other two fields, employment in science among women in 2006 was five to nine times the propor-
was almost equally likely for each gender, which was not tion among men.
true in the past (Figure D-4). Female scientists are more The age of the labor force has also been changing gradu-
likely than males, however, to be out of the labor force. ally. The median age in 2006 was considerably lower among
(Those out of the labor force but not retired are counted, biomedical scientists, at 46.9 years, than in the other two

OCR for page 125
8 APPENDIX D
0.16
Clinical
0.14
and Females Employed in Science
Difference in Propor tions of Males
Biomedical
0.12
2006 Biomedical
0.10 Behavioral
2006
0.08
Clinical
0.06 2006
Behavioral
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
0 200 40 0 600 800
Ratio
FIGURE D-4 Differences in male and female employment in science relative to the sex ratio in the U.S.-trained workforce between 1973
and 2006. D-4.eps
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 1973 and 2006.
foreign-trained Ph.d.s
fields. Among clinical scientists the median was 51.1 years,
among behavioral scientists 52.3 years. These medians
Foreign-trained Ph.D.s provide a substantial addition to
represent increases, since 1995, of 1.3 years in the biomedi-
the research workforce. They are not the only immigrants
cal field, 3.9 years in the clinical field, and 4.5 years in the
in the workforce. U.S.-trained Ph.D.s include many non-
behavioral field. Those 55 years and older have been a grow-
citizens, both permanent residents and temporary residents,
ing proportion of the workforce, but their gains have not
the latter having risen to a quarter of Ph.D. graduates. These
been coming at the expense of the youngest scientists. The
noncitizens have been incorporated into the preceding tabu-
proportion of those under 35 has also shown some growth;
lations, and this section adds only those who received their
though relatively slight (Figure D-5).
Ph.D.s outside the United States.
Clinical Behavioral
Biomedical
1.0
Age
0.8
Propor tion of Work force
55 +
0.6
0.4
35 -54
0.2
25 -34
0.0
2006
2006
2006
2003
2003
2003
2001
2001
2001
1999
1999
1999
1995
1995
1995
1997
1997
1997
Year
FIGURE D-5 Proportional age distribution of U.S.-trained workforce by major field, 1995-2006.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 1995-2006.
D-5.eps

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
The foreign-trained were not all included in surveys. They in which the foreign-trained differed from the U.S.-trained
were counted in 2003 and 2006 (although not in 2001), but was in age distribution. Their median ages were five to eight
in both cases, the sample frame was based on the decennial years lower, the difference mainly having to do with fewer
census. Any Ph.D.s who entered the country after the census foreign-trained scientists 55 years or older and more under
were therefore not counted. Estimates were generated of these 35 years. As a result, whereas foreign-trained biomedical
additional migrants through a complicated process involving and clinical scientists made up 21 percent of those 55 years
estimating the preceding inflows and extrapolating forward. and older in 2006, of those under 35 years, they made up 45
The specific procedures are described below. They produced percent in the biomedical field and 56 percent in the clinical
upward adjustments to the survey figures of 20-40 percent field (Figure D-7).
(varying by field) for 2003 and 40-90 percent for 2006.
Before adjustment, the foreign-trained were equivalent to
WorkforCe eNtraNtS
a fourth of the U.S.-trained in the biomedical field in 2006.
After adjustment, they were equivalent to about a third. In The three main groups of entrants who regularly augment
the clinical field, the adjustment increases the numbers of the workforce correspond to its three major segments, and as
the foreign-trained from almost half to two-thirds of the with these three segments, most of the data available cover
U.S.-trained. The behavioral field is a stark contrast, where Ph.D. graduates of U.S. universities. This section focuses
the foreign-trained are much fewer, and the adjustment mainly on them but adds estimates of foreign-trained Ph.D.
increases their numbers from 3 to 5 percent of the U.S.- migrants.
trained (Figure D-6). Taking into account the foreign-trained, To summarize the main characteristics of these entrants,
the workforce in biomedical sciences, instead of being only we note that, from 2000 to 2007 (the last year for which data
slightly larger than the workforce in behavioral sciences, was are available), the numbers of Ph.D. graduates in the three
actually 50 percent larger in 2006. major fields have mostly been rising, but the trends have been
The proportions employed in science among the foreign- somewhat erratic. NIH funding appears to play an outsize role
trained were generally similar to those among the U.S.- in producing these graduates. Their demographic characteris-
trained, with no consistent variation across fields. For tics indicate why the workforce is changing. As a group, they
instance, in 2006 in the biomedical field, the foreign-trained have become increasingly female and, in a reversal of previous
were slightly more likely to be employed in science and trends, are now slightly younger on average than earlier.
slightly less likely to be employed out of science, but the
reverse was true in the behavioral field. Similarly, gender
trends
composition was largely similar, except that, in the bio-
medical field, the sex ratio was slightly higher among the From 2000 to 2007, annual Ph.D. graduates in the bio-
foreign-trained than the U.S.-trained. One important way medical field increased 23 percent and in the clinical field 33
Biomedical
200
63.8 Foreign-trained Behavioral
150
48.6
39.8
U.S.-trained 5.4
4.2
Thousands
3.7
10 0
126.1 120.4
119.4 117.6
113.9
113.3 Clinical
50
16.3
15.3
13.9
24.2
21.0
19.1
0
2001 2003 2006 2001 2003 2006 2001 2003 2006
Year
FIGURE D-6 U.S.-trained and foreign-trained Ph.D. workforce, by major field and year (thousands).
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients and National Survey of College Graduates,
D-6.eps
2001-2006.

OCR for page 125
0 APPENDIX D
0.6
Biomedical Clinical Behavioral
0.56
0.54
0.5
Propor tion Foreign-Trained
0.45 0.40
0.4
0.39
0.34
0.36
0.3
0.29
0.2 0.21 0.21
0.1
0.10
0.04
0.07
0.03 0.03
0.0
ages
ages
ages
55+
55+
55+
35 -44
35 -44
35 -44
25 -34
25 -34
25 -34
45 -54
45 -54
45 -54
All
All
All
Age (years)
FIGURE D-7 Proportion foreign-trained in the workforce by age group and major field, 2006.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation National Survey of College Graduates, 2006.
D-7.eps
7,000
Biomedical
6,00 0
5,000
Ph.D. Graduates
4,0 00
Behavioral
3,000
2,00 0
1,000 Clinical
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
FIGURE D-8 Ph.D. graduates from U.S. universities by major field, 1970-2007: quadratic trend and annual variations.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey8.eps Doctorates, 2007.
D- of Earned
percent. In the behavioral field, however, they fell 6 percent, we show five-year moving averages.) A dip in growth around
although the trend since 2005 has been positive. These trends 2000 or shortly after is evident, but since then growth has
have generally been in line with earlier trends (Figure D-8). rebounded, although by 2007 it had not reached the levels
Roughly around 2001-2002, however, each field experienced of the early 1990s.
a drop in Ph.D. graduates that was deeper, at least in the bio- Ph.D. graduates include a number on temporary U.S.
medical and behavioral fields, than previous declines dating visas. In 2007, they were 30 percent of biomedical graduates,
to the 1970s. Figure D-9 shows growth rates over 15 years for 23 percent of clinical graduates, and 10 percent of behavioral
graduates in each field. (Since annual rates are quite erratic, graduates. Their numbers appear to rise when the numbers

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
0.08
Clinical
0.06
Biomedical
0.04
Annual Grow th Rate
0.02
Behavioral
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
FIGURE D-9 Annual growth rates for Ph.D. graduates by major field (five-year moving averages).
D-9.eps
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007.
2,000
2007
Biomedical
e
1,500
lin
Temporar y Residents
ty
al i
u
Eq
1,000
1995
Clinical
2007
500 2007
1970
Behavioral
1970
1970
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,00 0 4,0 00 5,00 0
U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
FIGURE D-10 Ph.D. graduates who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents versus temporary residents, by major field, 1970-2007.
D-10.eps
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007.
of those who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents rise, graduate), although they may respond more or less strongly
although not necessarily as fast (Figure D-10). The correla- than citizens and permanent residents. The rising numbers
tions between the sizes of the two groups over time are 0.94 of temporary residents among graduates show no apparent
among biomedical graduates, 0.99 among clinical graduates, lasting impact, at least so far, from any recent changes in
and smaller although still positive at 0.32 among behavioral immigration regulations.
graduates. This suggests that temporary resident students do Most U.S. citizens and permanent residents intend to stay
not mainly fill in for citizens but instead respond to similar and work in the United States immediately after graduation.
changing incentives and disincentives to enroll (or at least to Only 3-4 percent of those who express an intention say they

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
would work elsewhere. The percentages do not vary by sex highest among biomedical graduates. Overall, intentions to
or major field and have not changed much over the years, stay have been rising, generally as the proportion who are
although recently they may have become marginally more temporary residents has also been rising (Figure D-11). The
similar recently across fields. combination of rising proportions of temporary residents and
For temporary residents, intentions to stay in the United rising proportions of them intending to stay in the United
States after graduation vary across fields, being generally States implies that, among those newly minted Ph.D.s enter-
lowest among behavioral graduates and female clinical ing the U.S. workforce, temporary residents are increasingly
graduates, intermediate among male clinical graduates, and prominent (Figure D-12). Among biomedical graduates, they
0.9 2007
Biomedical
0.8
2007
Propor tion Intending To Stay
2007
0.7
1970
Behavioral
0.6
Clinical
0.5
1970
0.4
1970
0.3
0.2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Propor tion Who Are Temporar y Residents
FIGURE D-11 Temporary-resident Ph.D. graduates and their proportion intending to stay in the United States, by major field, 1970-2007.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007.
D-11.eps
Biomedical
0.30
0.25
Propor tion Temporarily Resident
0.20
Clinical
0.15
0.10
Behavioral
0.05
0.00
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
FIGURE D-12 Temporary residents as a proportion of those Ph.D. graduates intending to stay in the United States, by major field, 1970-
2007: quadratic trend and annual.
D-12.eps
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
were 17 percent in 1990 and 28 percent by 2007. Even among leading the sex ratio to drift further from equality. Trends
behavioral graduates they showed an increase in this period, among biomedical graduates (not shown) resemble those
from 4 to 7 percent. for clinical graduates. The behavioral field shows a contrast-
ing pattern. In the early 1970s, male and female graduates
increased in parallel, but since then, increases in female
Sex and age
graduates have gone with decreases in male graduates. The
The proportion of graduates who are female is rising in sex ratio is dropping among behavioral graduates as females
each field. Women have been the majority among clinical replace males.
graduates since 1983, just over a decade before they became Since roughly 1995, Ph.D. graduates have been getting
a majority in the clinical workforce. Among behavioral younger. This is true in each field even when male and
graduates women have been the majority since 1986, and female graduates are examined separately (Figure D-14).
it took 17 more years before they became a majority in the The change has been relatively gradual and by 2007 still fell
workforce. By 2007 in these two fields, female graduates short of reversing the rising trends in the median age over the
outnumbered male graduates by two to one, and the female- preceding 15 years. By 2007, median age among biomedical
male gap has continued to grow. Women are still a minority, graduates was 31.3 years, down from the high of 32.2 in 1995
but not by much, in the biomedical field, in which the sex and the lowest since 1984. Among behavioral graduates, the
ratio (the ratio of males per 100 females) was down to 109 by median age of 33.6 years was two years younger than the
2007, from 163 in 1990. The sex ratio has been falling faster peak in 1990 and the lowest since 1983. In both these fields,
among biomedical graduates than in the other two fields. All the median age for female graduates was lower than that
the graduate sex ratios are well below those in the research for males by half a year to a year, a divergence that started
workforce as a whole. mainly in the 1990s. Among clinical graduates, median age
The clinical and behavioral fields differ in one important has also declined, but from considerably higher levels, as
respect. Figure D-13 shows the trend in numbers of female high as 36.5 among males (in 1994) and 42.6 among females
clinical graduates plotted against male graduates over time, (in 1997). The 2007 medians of 35.0 and 38.1 thus represent
with the trend for each decade shown separately, and the substantial declines. As these estimates indicate, female
parallel trend among behavioral graduates. In the 1970s and clinical graduates have been substantially older than males,
through the early 1980s, numbers of male and female clini- unlike in the other two fields.
cal graduates were mostly uncorrelated. In the late 1980s, The declines in age have involved mainly reductions in
however, both numbers tended to increase in parallel, a older graduates, those in their late thirties or older. Gradu-
tendency clearly continuing in the 1990s and 2000s. Factors ates have become somewhat more concentrated at relatively
that increase the number of female graduates also appear to younger ages. The tendency has been for younger average ages
increase the number of males, although not quite as strongly, and a greater concentration of graduates at modal ages to go
3,000 2000s
Behavioral
2,500
1990s
2,000
1980s
Clinical
Females
1,500
2000s
e 1970s
lin
ty
li
ua
1,000 Eq
1990s
1980s
500
1970s
0
0 500 1,00 0 1,500 2,000 2,500
Males
FIGURE D-13 Numbers of male and female clinical and behavioral graduates, 1970-2007.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007.
D-13.eps

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
43
Behavioral
Biomedical Clinical
41
39
Female
Median Age (years)
37
Male
35
33
31
29
1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
FIGURE D-14 Median age among Ph.D. graduates by major field and sex, 1970-2007.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007.
D-14.eps
0.60 1970
B i omedical
Proportion in Modal Four-Year Age Group
2007
0.50
1970
Behavioral
0.40 2007
1970
0.30
2007
C linic al
0.20
0.10
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Median age (years)
FIGURE D-15 Proportion of graduates in the modal four-year age group, by median age and major field, 1970-2007.
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007.
D-15
together. In the biomedical field, which has a lower median age The declines in median age do not imply that training is
than the other two fields, 53 percent of 2007 graduates were in becoming more efficient or even shorter. Offsetting slightly
the modal age range of 27-31 years. In the clinical field, with earlier graduation is increasing resort to postdoctoral work.
the highest median age, only 27 percent were in the modal age In 1995, 30 percent of behavioral graduates planned on a
range of 30-33 years. Across fields and over time, the pattern postdoctoral fellowship. By 2007, this proportion had risen
is unmistakable (Figure D-15). As median ages rose in each to 46 percent. Clinical graduates showed a smaller increase,
field, the modal age covered fewer graduates, but then the from 21 to 28 percent. Although biomedical graduates did
trend reversed, leaving median ages and modal concentrations not show an increase in this period, they were already at a
in 2007 at intermediate levels in each field. very high level: 82 percent by 2007.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
Nih Support Tabulating the 2003 stock by date of entry into the United
States, we reverse-survived each immigrant cohort to date of
Graduates in the biomedical field passed 5,000 in 1995,
entry to determine its initial size. We used retirement rates
about the same time that the number of NIH predoctoral bio-
and mortality rates by age for the workforce as a whole,
medical awards (National Research Science Awards [NRSAs],
described below. These calculations were done separately
for trainees and fellows combined) also passed 5,000. Gradu-
for men and women in each field. The results suggested
ates passed 6,000 in 2005, and predoctoral awards passed
a rising trend among foreign-trained biomedical scientists
6,000 two years later (Figure D-16). In the 1980s and early
and considerable variability but no convincing trend among
1990s, the ratio of biomedical Ph.D. graduates to NRSA-
foreign clinical and behavioral scientists, who were consid-
supported doctoral students was close to 0.8:1, rising to
erably fewer.
around 1.1:1 after 2000. This suggests that the clear majority
Figure D-17 shows the estimated inflows of these foreign-
of Ph.D.s in these fields were NRSA awardees. If three out of
trained Ph.D.s, compared with the trends in the other entrants
four awardees completed the Ph.D., then slightly more than
into the workforce: the U.S.-trained Ph.D. graduates (citizens
that proportion of graduates were awardees after 2000.
and temporary residents) who choose to stay in the United
In the clinical field, NRSAs have fluctuated somewhat
States. Annual immigrant numbers are relatively volatile.
in number between 500 and 900. The ratio of graduates to
In the biomedical field in 2000, they were 50 percent of
current NRSAs was around 1.6:1 in the 1980s and 1990s
the entrants into the workforce, up from only 15 percent in
and settled to 2:1 in the 2000s. Assuming all the awardees
1990. (Estimates were also made for the years 1980-1984
graduate, close to half of graduates would have received an
combined and 1985-1989 combined, when inflows were
award. In the behavioral field, NRSAs since 1990 have fallen
even smaller.) Because U.S.-trained temporary-resident
short of the number in the clinical field and are proportion-
graduates were an additional 10 percent of the total in 2000,
ally much less important. The ratio of graduates to current
immigrants made up the majority of new workforce entrants
awardees is between 5:1 and 7:1, suggesting that a minority
in that year, and could have been an even larger proportion,
of graduates—around 15 percent—receive such awards.
because permanent residents are lumped with citizens. In
the clinical field, foreign-trained immigrants outnumbered
foreign-trained Ph.d.s graduates in some years in the early 1990s, and in the late
1990s were 20-40 percent of the total. In the behavioral field
No counts or sample estimates are available for the flow
they were much less consequential, averaging only 7 percent
of foreign-trained Ph.D.s into the U.S. workforce. From the
of the entrants over the decade.
stock information in the 2003 survey, considered above, we
These immigrant flow figures are in a sense underes-
estimated the probable annual inflow from the 1990s, making
timates, because those who may have returned to their
assumptions about retirements and deaths.
countries of origin or emigrated elsewhere were not counted
7,000
Biomedical
6,000
Behavioral
5,000
4,000
Number
Graduates
3,000
2,000 Trainees
Clinical
& fellows
1,000
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
FIGURE D-16 Ph.D. graduates and NRSA predoctoral trainees and fellows by major field, 1970-2007.
D-16.eps
SOURCE: Data extracted from National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2007, and NIH IMPACII Database.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
among immigrants will be essentially constant (which is The aging of the workforce will be most notable among
expected at least among clinical and behavioral scientists behavioral scientists, among whom the proportion 55 years
given our assumption of a constant flow). Among U.S. and older will rise from 39 percent in 2006 to 44 percent in
graduates, however, sex ratios will be falling in each field. 2016. This proportion is much smaller in the other two fields
They are already well below sex ratios in the workforce as a and will rise only to 24 percent among biomedical scientists
whole—35 to 60 points below—and by 2016 will be 45 to 75 and 30 percent among clinical scientists (Figure D-30).
points below, with the greatest gap in the biomedical field. A Younger foreign-trained researchers clearly help keep ages
predominantly male biomedical professoriate, therefore, will down in the biomedical and clinical fields, although even
be training a majority female student body. without them, the workforce in these fields would be younger
Median ages among behavioral scientists will rise, but in than in the behavioral field.
the other two fields, trends will be less clear. Male behavioral One consequence of having more older scientists is more
scientists, already the oldest in 2006 with a median age of retirements and deaths. The proportion retiring or dying
54.7 years, will become older still, reaching a median of 57 annually will rise in each field, from a range of 1.2-1.6 per-
years by 2016. The median age among female behavioral cent of the workforce in 2007 to 1.4-2.8 percent in 2016. The
scientists will also rise, from 49.2 to 49.9 years. The median proportion retiring or dying will be particularly high among
age is lowest among female biomedical scientists, at 41.6 male behavioral scientists, at 3.8 percent by 2016. Among
years, and will inch upward to 41.9 years. At the same time male behavioral scientists, this number already exceeded
the median age for male biomedical scientists will be falling, the number of graduates actually entering the workforce in
from 47 to 46.4 years. Trends in median age among clinical 2006 (leaving out those not intending to stay in the United
scientists will also provide a contrast between males and States) and will be almost twice as numerous by 2016 (Fig-
females, although the trends will not be linear. Among males, ure D-31). The 3,800 behavioral scientists, both male and
median age will rise and then fall; among females it will fall female, projected to retire or die in 2016 will be barely under
and then rise, in neither case producing much net change. the number of new Ph.D. graduates, which is projected at
Some of the complications in age trends are due to dif- 4,200. This does not account for foreign-trained Ph.D.s, but
ferences between U.S.-trained and foreign-trained scientists they are few in the behavioral field.
(Figure D-29). The foreign-trained have been younger than The proportion of the workforce employed in science
the U.S.-trained in each field and have helped keep the should stay roughly the same, about 80-85 percent in each
median age down. Median age is projected to rise among field. The proportion working in non-science jobs should also
the foreign-trained in most cases, however. At the same time, stay at 12 percent in the biomedical field but could drop in the
median age should fall among the U.S.-trained biomedical other two fields. It was slightly higher in the clinical field than
and clinical scientists, while it rises among behavioral in the biomedical field in 2006, at 17 percent, and could fall to
scientists. 11 percent. It was also higher in the behavioral field, at 18 per-
Behavioral
60 U.S.-trained Male Fe male
Foreign-trained
Combined
Clinical
55
Male Fe male
Median Age (years)
Biomedical
Male Fe male
50
45
40
35
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
Year
FIGURE D-29 Median age of projected workforce by major field, sex, and source of Ph.D., 2006-2016.
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
D-29.eps

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
Biomedical Clinical Behavioral 55 +
1.0
Foreign
0.9
U.S.
0.8
35 -54
0.7
Propor tion
Foreign
0.6
U.S.
0.5
0.4 25 -34
0.3 Foreign
0.2
U.S.
0.1
0.0
2006
2006
2006
2008
2008
2008
2010
2016
2010
2016
2010
2016
2012
2012
2012
2014
2014
2014
Year
FIGURE D-30 Projected age distribution of the workforce by source of training and major field, 2006-2016.
D-30.eps
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
Biomedical Clinical Behavioral
0.06 Males Females Males Females Males Females
0.
Propor tion of Work force
0.04
Entering
graduates
0.03
Dying
0.02
Retiring
0.01
0.00
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
Year
FIGURE D-31 Projected proportions dying and retiring, compared to entering graduates as a proportion of the workforce, by major field
and sex, 2007-2016.
D-31.eps
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
cent, and could fall to 15 percent. Since transition rates among than those employed in science. The greatest increase will be
these statuses were based on rates over more than a decade and in the biomedical field (Figure D-32). The obvious explana-
not allowed to change, one would expect quite recent changes tion is the growing proportion of women in the workforce.
in transition rates, such as the mid-2000s, increase in propor- Although this factor should have a role, decomposition of the
tion out of science, to be reversed to some degree. change suggests it is not the main explanation. In the bio-
The greatest proportional change in employment status medical field, it is due instead to a projected change among
could involve the proportion not in the labor force. This women themselves. Between 2003 and 2006, the proportion
small segment of the workforce, between 1.5 and 3 percent out of the labor force among female biomedical scientists fell
of the workforce in 2006, could grow 50-250 percent faster by a third, from an unusually high 7.5 percent to a still very

OCR for page 125
8 APPENDIX D
Number Percent
12 ,000 4
2006
2006
10 ,000
2016
3
2016
8,000
Number
Percent
6,000 2
4,000
1
2,000
0 0
Biomedical Clinical Behavioral Biomedical Clinical Behavioral
FIGURE D-32 Projected number and percentage of the workforce not in the labor force by major field, 2006 to 2016.
SOURCE: NRC analysis. D-32.eps
350,00 0
High
Medium
30 0,00 0
Low
250,00 0
No migrants
Biomedical
200,00 0
Scientists
150,00 0 Behavioral
10 0,00 0
Clinical
50,0 00
0
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Year
FIGURE D-33 Alternative workforce projections by major field, 2006-2016.
D-33.eps
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
high 5.0 percent. With no evidence that this is the start of a fields (Figure D-33). The medium scenario gives almost
long-term trend or even a long-term downward adjustment, identical 61 percent and 58 percent increases in the work-
we have allowed rates to return to previous levels, which force between 2006 and 2016 in the biomedical and clinical
accounts for the major part of the increase in those not in fields. The high scenario gives an increase in the biomedical
the labor force in this field. field of 84 percent, 23 percentage points higher than the
medium scenario (Figure D-34). In the clinical field, the high
scenario gives an increase that is only 13 percentage points
alternative Scenarios
higher than the medium scenario. In the behavioral field,
The alternatives to the medium scenario provide much the medium 10-year increase is only 9 percent, and the high
more variation in the biomedical field than in the other two scenario gives an increase only 2 percentage points higher.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
Biomedical Behavioral
Clinical
20 06 -2016 medium
20 06 -2016 medium
2006 -2016 medium
23 %
25 increase = 9 %
increase = 58 %
increase = 61%
13 %
Percentage Point Difference
2%
0
–3 %
–6 %
–14%
–14%
–25
–32%
–46%
–50
High Low No High Low No High Low No
Migrants Migrants Migrants
Alternative Scenario
FIGURE D-34 Difference of alternative scenarios from the medium projection in percentage change from 2006 to 2016, by major field.
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
D-34.eps
On the other side of the ledger, the low scenario gives a 14 percentage growth between 2006 and 2016 would be greater
percentage point lower increase in both the biomedical and or smaller under different combinations of immigrant and
clinical fields than the medium scenario and a 3 percentage graduate growth. Except in the behavioral field, where the
point lower increase in the behavioral field. foreign-trained workforce is only a small percentage of the
One could of course select arbitrarily symmetrical alter- total, the variation between high and low numbers of gradu-
native scenarios, but the ones chosen are derived from some ates has a smaller effect on the projected workforce than
past experience with inflows and outflows, and therefore the variation between high and low numbers of immigrants.
presumably represent more realistic possibilities. The range And high numbers of graduates would clearly not make up
of past growth rates has been narrower in the clinical field in for zero immigrants. Still, because zero immigration is in
the past than in the biomedical field, and still narrower in the fact an ahistorical situation, one cannot entirely rule out
behavioral field, which is why the scenarios for biomedical an ahistorical increase in graduates that goes beyond past
researchers produce much more variation. trends.
An extreme scenario has migrant inflows ending and The proportion who will be foreign-trained varies in
temporary-resident graduates all deciding to work overseas. different scenarios, especially in the biomedical field (see
Combined with the low projection for total graduates, this Figure D-36 and Table D-7). In the high projection for bio-
would produce larger reductions relative to the medium medical scientists, the foreign-trained would reach almost
projection, as much as 46 percentage points lower in the half of the total by 2016, in the low scenario only 40 percent.
biomedical field. But the workforce would still grow in In the no-migrant scenario, there will still be foreign-trained
each field. researchers, because we assume that immigration does not
Could an increase in graduates make up for the hypoth- cease until 2010, and in addition do not assume that foreign-
esized lack of immigrants in this scenario? We have not trained researchers already in the United States all emigrate.
assessed the factors that might make a substantial increase By 2016, they would still be 32 percent of the total. In the
in graduates possible, such as faculty, funding, and student clinical field, the proportion foreign-trained in 2016 varies in
interest. We can, however, assess whether this is likely a more limited range, from 38 percent to 31 percent (in the
given past trends in graduates, as reflected in the different no-migrant scenario), and in the behavioral field the variation
projection scenarios. Comparing scenarios suggests that, is even more limited.
absent an ahistorical boost in graduates, they would not Across the different scenarios, variations in projected sex
increase enough to fill all the niches that immigrants would ratios are relatively slight. The greatest variation will be in
potentially leave vacant. Figure D-35 compares additional the biomedical field in 2016, when the sex ratio could range
alternative scenarios with the medium scenario, showing how from 149 to 138. Variation in age will be somewhat greater.

OCR for page 125
0 APPENDIX D
Biomedical Clinical Behavioral
25
Migrants: Graduates:
Percentage Point Difference
High
High
0 Medium
Medium
–25
Low Low
Zero
Zero
–50
Medium Migrants
Medium Migrants
Medium Migrants
Medium Graduates
Medium Graduates
Medium Graduates
FIGURE D-35 Difference of other projections from the medium projection in percentage change from 2006 to 2016, by major field.
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
D-35.eps
0.5 Clinical
Biomedical
Scenario
High
Medium
0.4
Low
Propor tion of Work force
No Migrants
0.3
0.2
0.1 Behavioral
0.0
2006
2006
2006
2008
2008
2008
2010
2016
2010
2016
2010
2016
2012
2012
2012
2014
2014
2014
Year
FIGURE D-36 Foreign-trained Ph.D.s as a proportion of the workforce in alternative scenarios, by major field, 2006-2016.
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
D-36.eps
In general, more rapid growth implies a younger workforce. female biomedical scientists, who are clearly younger and
Regardless of the scenario, however, behavioral scientists will not catch up in age to any other group in any scenario.
will be older in 2016 than in 2006 (Figure D-37). Clinical
scientists will also be older in almost every scenario. But
Will growth Be adequate?
biomedical scientists could be younger in 2016, under the
high or medium scenarios, or older, under the low or no- What workforce growth would be enough to maintain the
migrant scenarios. When scientists are divided by field and research infrastructure in various disciplines, to nurture suf-
sex, four of the six groups are not that different in current and ficient scientific discovery, and to allow for new disciplines
projected median age. The exceptions are male behavioral to develop within each field? This would require much more
scientists, who are clearly older and will get older still, and information, as well as value judgments about what is suf-

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
Behavioral
Clinical
Biomedical
126%
120
119%
Projected,
20 06 -2016:
10 0
Percentage Increase
High
83 % 87%
80
76 %
70 %
Medium
67%
60 61%
58 %
Low
46 %
43 %
40 44%
42 %
39 %
26 %
26 %
20 No
11%
15% migrants
9%
6%
0 3%
1973 - 1983 - 1993 - 1973 - 1983 - 1993 - 1973 - 1983 - 1993 -
1983 1993 2003 1983 1993 2003 1983 1993 2003
Year
FIGURE D-38 Percentage increases in the U.S.-trained workforce in past decades and alternative projections for the entire Ph.D. workforce
for 2006-2016, by major field.
D-38.eps
SOURCE: NRC analysis.
to the question of whether the projected workforce will maintained between research funding and the workforce is
be adequate. In 2003, total U.S. funding for biomedical suggested by the fact that funding, in the 1994-2003 period,
research—from the NIH and other government sources, shifted to some degree from basic biomedical research to
industry, and foundations and other private sources—totaled clinical research,5 at the same time that the clinical workforce
$75.5 billion.2 If this were distributed equally among Ph.D.s appeared to be growing faster than the biomedical workforce
in the three major fields combined, research funds would (at least where U.S.-trained Ph.D.s are concerned).
amount to $232,000 per researcher. The 2006 total of $93.4 Whether projected workforce growth keeps pace with
billion would imply $262,000 per researcher in that year. research funding depends on the trend in funding. Biomedical
This was an apparent increase in funds per researcher of 13.3 Ph.D.s are projected to increase 4.8 percent from 2006 to
percent in three years, but, if one adjusts for rising research 2016, clinical Ph.D.s, 4.5 percent. Both these estimates are
costs (using the Biomedical Research and Development lower than the annual funding growth rate (adjusted for
Price Index3), the increase is reduced to a trivial 0.4 percent. research costs) of 7.5 percent in 1994-2003 but higher than
In this period at least, workforce growth and research funding the more recent growth rate of 3.4 percent in 2003-2007.
kept pace with each other. Since the 3.4 percent rate predates the great recession, one
This may not always have been the case. From 1994 to might expect funding growth up to 2016 to slow even further.
2003, total U.S. research funding grew at an annual rate of The additional $8.6 billion from the American Recovery and
7.5 percent (adjusted for changing research costs). 4 Fig- Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides a short-term boost for
ure D-39 shows this earlier trend (expressed as an index, 2009 and 2010,6 but even adding $4.3 billion more for every
with 2003 levels set to 100), distinguished from the trend year thereafter on top of an annual 3.4 percent increase would
since 2003 because data sources differed and gave somewhat raise the funding growth rate only to 3.7 percent.
higher estimates. In 1994-2003, the U.S.-trained biomedical The implication appears to be that growth in the biomedi-
workforce grew at a rate of 3.5 percent, and the clinical work- cal and clinical workforces will somewhat exceed growth
force at 5.5 percent. Foreign-trained researchers might have in research funding, if funding growth (in real rather than
made up the gap, but we do not have adequate data before constant dollars) follows or falls short of the growth rate for
2001 to determine this. That some correspondence was 2003-2007. The reverse situation, where funding grows faster
than the workforce, may be understandable, but diminishing
research funding per capita would seem to be an uncomfort-
Dorsey, E.R., et al. 2010. Funding of U.S. biomedical research, JAMA
2
303(2):137-143.
National Institutes of Health, Office of Budget. 2010, Biomedical Ibid., pp. 1336-1337.
3 5
Research and Deelopment Price Index (BRDPI). Available at: http:// This includes $8.2 billion for the NIH for extramural scientific research
6
officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/gbiPriceIndexes.html. and $0.4 billion for AHRQ for comparative effectiveness research, accord -
Moses, H. III, et al. 2005. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. ing to NIH, 2010, PowerPoint presentation on NIH Implementation of
4
JAMA 294(11):1333-1342. ARRA, available at: http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
Biomedical
180
Clinical
160
Funding of U.S.
140
Index (2003 = 10 0)
biomedical research
(adjusted for changing
research costs)
120 Behavioral
10 0
80
60
40
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018
Year
FIGURE D-39 Index of research funding compared with indexed past and projected growth of the research workforce (2003 = 100).
SOURCES: Moses, H. III, et al. 2005. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA 294(11):1333-1342; Dorsey, E.R., et al. 2010.
Funding of U.S. biomedical research. JAMA 303(2):137-143; and NRC analysis.
D-39.eps
able situation. In the low scenario, growth in these two fields force. Their numbers could understandably decline should
is reduced to 3.8 and 3.6 percent annually, which is closer U.S. funding increase at a slower pace than elsewhere.
to the expected trend in funding growth if it follows 2003-
2007 rates but could still be higher than recession-affected
Projection accuracy
rates. Behavioral Ph.D.s are excluded from this calculation
because so much of the funding—from pharmaceutical, bio- The accuracy of these projections cannot be determined
technology, and medical device firms—is likely to involve prospectively. We can, however, make two types of compari-
at best limited behavioral research. (These three types of sons: of these projections with projections from other sources
firms accounted for almost 60 percent of research funding in and of earlier projections that used the current methodology
2007.) However, if one included behavioral Ph.D.s, combin- with subsequent survey estimates.
ing the medium projections for the three fields, the projected Alternative projections have been produced by the Bureau
workforce growth rate of 3.5 percent annually for 2006-2016 of Labor Statistics9 (BLS), as part of a regular program that
would also be closer to the recent funding growth rate. produces 10-year projections for all occupations and indus-
Should the research workforce grow more slowly than tries. Comparisons with BLS projections are not straight-
projected, one possibility would be slower growth in foreign- forward because occupational classifications differ. The
trained Ph.D.s. The large role of foreign-trained Ph.D.s in the closest to our categories of biomedical and clinical scientists
workforce (other than in the behavioral sciences) is probably (who as earlier noted numbered 190,000 and 40,500, respec-
predictable from research funding patterns. U.S. funding for tively, in 2006) are their categories of biological scientists
biomedical research represents 70-80 percent of global fund- and medical scientists (95,000 and 114,200, respectively, in
ing.7 We do not have data on the global workforce in these 2008). The BLS subcategories are too limited to allow sort-
fields, but of science and engineering researchers worldwide, ing into biomedical and clinical groups, and the categories
U.S. researchers make up only 25 percent.8 The probable mis- include some without Ph.D.s. But totals at least are close,
match between providing so much of the research funding and and we make comparisons of both BLS categories against
possibly a smaller share of researchers could help explain why both of those used here.
large numbers of foreign researchers are entering the work- For 2008-2018, BLS projects much slower growth in
numbers of both biological and medical scientists than we
project for 2006-2016 for biomedical or clinical scientists.
Whereas we project annual growth rates of 4.5-4.8 percent,
Dorsey et al., op. cit., p. 141, citing Schweitzer, S. O. 2007. Pharmaceu­
7
tical Economics and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2008. Guide to
8
R&D funding data—International comparisons. Available at: http://www. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. National employment matrix. Avail-
9
aaas.org/spp/rd/guiintl.htm. able at: http://www.bls.gov/emp#data.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
0.10
2004-2008
0.08
Biomedical Clinical
Annual Grow th Rate
Ph.D.s, Ph.D.s,
2006 –2016 2006 –2016
0.06
0.048
0.045
0.04
2008 -2018 2004-2014
Bureau
0.02 of Labor
Statistics
0.019 0.033 0.016 0.029 0.053 0.0 99
0.00
Biological
Medical
Biological
Medical
Biological
Medical
Scientists
Scientists
Scientists
Scientists
Scientists
Scientists
FIGURE D-40 Annual growth rates for biological and medical scientists for various periods from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and current
projections for biomedical and clinical Ph.D.s.
D-40.eps
SOURCES: Bureau of Labor Statistics data downloaded from www.bls.gov/emp#/data in January 2010; Hecker, D.E. 2005. Occupational
employment projections to 2014. Monthly Labor Reiew 128(11):70-101; and NRC analysis.
BLS projects rates of 1.9-3.3 percent. Could BLS be taking in 2008, much greater than our 125,800 behavioral scientists
into account the current recession, which is not reflected in in 2006. (We have excluded speech-language pathologists,
the survey data from which we derive projection parameters? who would have added 119,300 to the total.) BLS projects
One way to investigate this possibility is to see how their annual growth of 1.7 percent for 2004-2014 and 1.2 percent
projections have changed. A paper10 published in 2005 gives for 2008-2018 for the combined group, in contrast to our 0.9
projections for 2004-2014. This paper gives growth rates for percent for 2006-2016 (Figure D-41). The BLS projections,
their two categories as 1.6 and 2.9 percent, actually less opti- in this case, indicate faster growth than our projections, but
mistic than the recent ones, so recent economic upsets do not its 2004-2008 data actually show annual change of –1.1
seem to have been a factor in their projecting slow growth. percent. As with biomedical and clinical scientists, our pro-
Their earlier projections do give 2004 baseline data, however, jections differ from the BLS’s in the direction of relatively
which can be compared with the more recent 2008 baseline more acknowledgment of past trends.
(Figure D-40). This comparison suggests surprisingly high Have projections such as those made here been accurate
annual growth rates for 2004-2008 of 5.3 and 9.9 percent. in the past? The 2005 report on national needs11 contained
For whatever reason, BLS appears to project far slower similar projections for 2001-2011. From this series, projec -
growth for these occupations than is actually reflected in the tions up to 2006 can be compared with the 2006 survey
base data they use for their projections. Our projections look results, although this is not a simple matter. The 2001
much more reasonable in comparison, and the fact that they survey did not count foreign-trained Ph.D.s, who had to be
are lower than the 2004-2008 rates could be justified by the estimated previously and were reestimated in the current
potential impact of the great recession. exercise from later data. The 2006 survey undercounted the
BLS categories for behavioral scientists are even more foreign-trained, and immigrants arriving since 2000 had to
difficult to match with ours. We combine the BLS categories be estimated and added. We make the comparisons never-
of psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists, recogniz- theless in Figure D-42. The growth rates projected in the
ing that the “most significant” source of personnel in some 2005 report were too low for biomedical scientists, too high
of these categories is individuals with a master’s rather than for clinical scientists, and slightly too high for behavioral
a doctoral degree. The total for these categories is 180,900 scientists. The range between high and low projections was
Hecker, D.E. 2005. Occupational employment projections to 2014. National Research Council. 2005. Adancing the Nation’s Health
10 11
Monthly Labor Reiew 128(11):70-101. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX D
alternative high and low projections here should not be taken residents would stay in the U.S., beginning with the 2008
to represent the limits of possible future variation. They are cohort. Under these conditions, the decadal increment to
not based on the most extreme trends in past data and should the biomedical workforce would drop from 116,000 to
not be taken to represent the extreme future possibilities, but 28,000—which would still be double the highest projected
are rather alternatives that depart somewhat modestly from increment to the behavioral workforce. For the biomedical
the main scenario. A second implication is probably that workforce to actually decline by 2016, a still more extreme
better, up-to-date data are needed on foreign-trained Ph.D.s. situation would have to be imagined, such as, in addition,
the departure of all foreign-trained Ph.D.s now in the United
States. They were a third of the biomedical workforce in
CoNCluSioN
2006, and their departure, together with a halt to immigra-
Projecting the research workforce in three major fields— tion, would reduce the 2016 biomedical workforce by 42,000
biomedical, clinical, and behavioral—indicates that each from its 2006 level.
faces different prospects. This variation in prospects is An increasing proportion of U.S.-trained Ph.D.s in the
visible from a close examination of survey data on the workforce are female. In the U.S.-trained clinical workforce,
workforce and on graduates. Running projections serves to they have been the majority since 1994, and in the behavioral
confirm and concretize conclusions that might be drawn from workforce, they became the majority around 2004. In both
such an examination. cases, their majority is projected to become larger. In the
The biomedical research workforce has grown rapidly, biomedical field, they are still the minority. Although they
particularly in recent years. From 2001 to 2006, it expanded will remain so until 2016, the gap will narrow, with the sex
24 percent, adding 37,000 scientists. The behavioral research ratio falling from 183 males per 100 females in 2006 to 146
workforce, in contrast, grew only 7 percent in the same in 2016. In the biomedical workforce as a whole, however,
period, adding only 8,000 scientists. The clinical research the gap will be greater, because women are a smaller minor-
workforce is much smaller than the other two, in total only ity among foreign-trained Ph.D.s, both in the biomedical
slightly larger than the 2001-2006 increment in the bio- and clinical field, although not in the behavioral field. Even
medical workforce. It grew almost as fast as the biomedical among the foreign-trained, however, the sex ratio appears
workforce, at 23 percent. generally to be falling.
Reflecting this recent history, the biomedical workforce is The workforce will almost certainly age in the slow-
projected to grow, over a decade from 2006 to 2016, by 61 growing behavioral field, where the proportion 55 years and
percent, the clinical workforce almost as fast at 58 percent, older will reach 44 percent by 2016. Whether the workforce
and the behavioral workforce by an anemic 9 percent. Slow will also age in the other two fields is less clear, since an
growth in the past has gone with less volatility, and alterna- increase in the smaller proportions 55 years and older is to
tive projections for behavioral and clinical scientists show some extent balanced by increases in the proportions under
less variation than alternatives for biomedical scientists. age 35.
Among those with U.S. Ph.D.s, behavioral scientists were Will sufficient research funding be available for the pro-
almost as numerous as biomedical scientists in 2006, and jected workforce? For 2006, total U.S. biomedical research
actually more numerous up to 2001. However, behavioral funding, from government, industry, and foundations, was
Ph.D. graduates of U.S. universities have hardly changed in $93.4 billion, or $262,000 per scientist in the three major
number since 1990, a period during which biomedical Ph.D. fields combined. Real growth in funding, from 2003 to
graduates have increased strongly. In addition, and just as 2007, was 3.4 percent annually. If the growth rate stays at
crucially, foreign-trained Ph.D.s are far more numerous in this level (or declines because of recession), funding growth
the biomedical field than in the behavioral field and are also will be slower than the projected growth of the biomedical
increasing. or clinical workforces, which will be more than 1 percentage
The biomedical workforce could therefore be more point faster.
strongly affected than the behavioral or clinical workforces How accurate projections of this sort can be, drawing
by an interruption in immigrant flow. In the most extreme on data and trends that predate the economic crisis, it is not
s ituation modeled, immigration would cease in 2010, possible to say. It may take a while for data to emerge that
and none of the U.S. Ph.D. graduates who are temporary would permit more confident projections.

Bookmark this page

Important Notice

As of 2013, the National Science Education Standards have been replaced by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), available as a print book, free PDF download, and online with our OpenBook platform.